Trump Redeemed - No Russia Collusion and 2 Warrants

Unconfirmed reports suggest the very real possibility, of collusion with the Russians regarding the release of the DNC hacked emails

yes, you heard it right - CNN Breaking News!

Unconfirmed reports suggest the possibility of Trump campaign collusion in the release of hacked DNC emails, regarding the timing
of the release to WikiLeaks.

And they also offer a caveat or fine print

The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though
officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.

Why is Hannity spending his time talking about everything we already know....Oh yes! I get it, "we are simply asking questions that the people should
know about the secret services"
So egotist Hannity is sitting there as if he knows nothing, and just letting Farter Carter get on with the straaaange mysteeery of the secret sevices
abilities that up to now, this minute, nobody knew nuttin' Sheesh!

And all the while of course, the Russian/Trump campaign enquiry is ongoing and nobody is going to hear about it until it is complete...which it
ain't, so Fox is fecking about with stuff we already know, Hannity being that thick enough to reiterate something as if it were new..for all you
folks out there!

Here is what is striking about the situation: Hackers were able to leak emails embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, but not the Trump campaign.
Sophisticated Russian hackers could probably exploit any number of vulnerabilities to obtain incriminating emails or texts that would support Trump's
claims; if not from the secure White House servers, then from clumsy field agents or stolen Secret Service laptops. (Oops. That must be a
coincidence.) No such "leaks" have been produced.

His name was Seth Rich

And Podesta got phished by a low key email. not super advanced.

IT is likely the RNC and Trump was attacked by hackers a lot, considering hackers typically lean hard left.
Trump didnt have a leaker and his staff was not dumb enough to get phished. The end.

Trump didnt have a leaker and his staff was not dumb enough to get phished. The end.

Then why is Trump screaming about leakers in his administration? He actually suggested that Congress investigate them. (As if that were its job!) It's
not a question of whether one group has better security, it is a question of when releasing the information gathered will best further the hackers'
agenda. If the goal is political chaos in the United States, defeating the competent establishment candidate was a good first step, and embroiling the
inexperienced winning candidate in scandals a good second step. But no-one could possibly have that agenda, could they?

Trump didnt have a leaker and his staff was not dumb enough to get phished. The end.

Then why is Trump screaming about leakers in his administration? He actually suggested that Congress investigate them. (As if that were its job!) It's
not a question of whether one group has better security, it is a question of when releasing the information gathered will best further the hackers'
agenda. If the goal is political chaos in the United States, defeating the competent establishment candidate was a good first step, and embroiling the
inexperienced winning candidate in scandals a good second step. But no-one could possibly have that agenda, could they?

Trump didnt have a leaker and his staff was not dumb enough to get phished. The end.

Then why is Trump screaming about leakers in his administration? He actually suggested that Congress investigate them. (As if that were its job!) It's
not a question of whether one group has better security, it is a question of when releasing the information gathered will best further the hackers'
agenda. If the goal is political chaos in the United States, defeating the competent establishment candidate was a good first step, and embroiling the
inexperienced winning candidate in scandals a good second step. But no-one could possibly have that agenda, could they?

What has Putin's agenda got to do with collusion?

Are you saying that Putin's agenda includes political chaos in the United States? Thank you for that concession. As for "collusion," it is much the
same as the allegations in the Steele dossier. It does not matter whether the charges are true or not, it only matters that they create a scandal that
keeps the government unable to function efficiently.

At this point, there is absolutely no doubt that Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn received large sums f money from sources tied to the Kremlin. This
was in their capacity as private citizens, and is legal. It does create the impression of potential influence, however, and that is a weakness that
can be exploited, just like plausible, if fictitious, kompromat.

Trump didnt have a leaker and his staff was not dumb enough to get phished. The end.

Then why is Trump screaming about leakers in his administration? He actually suggested that Congress investigate them. (As if that were its job!) It's
not a question of whether one group has better security, it is a question of when releasing the information gathered will best further the hackers'
agenda. If the goal is political chaos in the United States, defeating the competent establishment candidate was a good first step, and embroiling the
inexperienced winning candidate in scandals a good second step. But no-one could possibly have that agenda, could they?

What has Putin's agenda got to do with collusion?

Are you saying that Putin's agenda includes political chaos in the United States? Thank you for that concession. As for "collusion," it is much the
same as the allegations in the Steele dossier. It does not matter whether the charges are true or not, it only matters that they create a scandal that
keeps the government unable to function efficiently.

At this point, there is absolutely no doubt that Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn received large sums f money from sources tied to the Kremlin. This
was in their capacity as private citizens, and is legal. It does create the impression of potential influence, however, and that is a weakness that
can be exploited, just like plausible, if fictitious, kompromat.

I can't remember anyone saying that Russia don't interfere... they have been for decades.

Actually it does matter whether the charges of collusion are true. That is the whole point, otherwise there is nothing unusual about Russia's
actions.

You are effectively admitting that Putin and Russia have fully succeeded in getting you to distrust your govt. and democratic process. To do it, they
appear to have had ample help from the media.

Actually it does matter whether the charges of collusion are true. That is the whole point, otherwise there is nothing unusual about Russia's
actions.

So hacking private citizens and making their emails public is okay in your book? Be that as it may, there is a huge difference between running
editorials on RT and planting phony evidence on politicians. If the Trump campaign was not colluding, Russia has done an excellent job of framing
them. Thank you for finally admitting that Russia is interfering in our domestic politics, and accepting the syllogism: "If the Trump campaign was not
colluding with Russia, Russia has framed them."

You are effectively admitting that Putin and Russia have fully succeeded in getting you to distrust your govt.

I trust in the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution. I do not trust the incoming administration, but I have faith the processes of liberal
democracy will correct the situation. The Kremlin may have won a battle, but they will lose the war.

Actually it does matter whether the charges of collusion are true. That is the whole point, otherwise there is nothing unusual about Russia's
actions.

So hacking private citizens and making their emails public is okay in your book? Be that as it may, there is a huge difference between running
editorials on RT and planting phony evidence on politicians. If the Trump campaign was not colluding, Russia has done an excellent job of framing
them. Thank you for finally admitting that Russia is interfering in our domestic politics, and accepting the syllogism: "If the Trump campaign was not
colluding with Russia, Russia has framed them."

You are effectively admitting that Putin and Russia have fully succeeded in getting you to distrust your govt.

I trust in the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution. I do not trust the incoming administration, but I have faith the processes of liberal
democracy will correct the situation. The Kremlin may have won a battle, but they will lose the war.

You are conflating two issues.

The first, Russian propaganda, relies on your gullibility and seems to have succeeded. Russian propaganda is nothing new and mirrors US propaganda
(and others). The US is probably the most skilled at influencing and unsettling other countries.

The second, collusion between your President, his team and the Russians is a serious charge with no evidence, just innuendo that could well be driven
by Russia, but if so they have been helped by left wing media, perhaps wittingly, perhaps deliberately. If Russia are trying to 'frame' the US Govt.
then their biggest allies and advocates are the likes of CNN, MSNBC, NYT and WaPo.

The first, Russian propaganda, relies on your gullibility and seems to have succeeded.

I'm not the one rooting for the Kremlin.

The second, collusion between your President, his team and the Russians is a serious charge with no evidence, just innuendo that could well be
driven by Russia, but if so they have been helped by left wing media, perhaps wittingly, perhaps deliberately. If Russia are trying to 'frame' the US
Govt. then their biggest allies and advocates are the likes of CNN, MSNBC, NYT and WaPo.

Now you are conflating two issues. One is the Trump administration's possible collusion with Russia. That requires a criminal investigation,
and was within Russia's power to create. The other is Donald Trump's fitness for office; that is the issue everyone but Trump's hard core
supporters are concerned about.

The first, Russian propaganda, relies on your gullibility and seems to have succeeded.

I'm not the one rooting for the Kremlin.

The second, collusion between your President, his team and the Russians is a serious charge with no evidence, just innuendo that could well be
driven by Russia, but if so they have been helped by left wing media, perhaps wittingly, perhaps deliberately. If Russia are trying to 'frame' the US
Govt. then their biggest allies and advocates are the likes of CNN, MSNBC, NYT and WaPo.

Now you are conflating two issues. One is the Trump administration's possible collusion with Russia. That requires a criminal investigation,
and was within Russia's power to create. The other is Donald Trump's fitness for office; that is the issue everyone but Trump's hard core
supporters are concerned about.

I don't think you are rooting for Russia, I think you have been unwittingly co-opted through propaganda to help them.

I didn't mention fitness for office, only that the collusion narrative is something pushed by the liberal media and helps the Russian goals you state
you understand.

I don't think you are rooting for Russia, I think you have been unwittingly co-opted through propaganda to help them.

No. They want us to believe that liberal democracy is bankrupt. I remind people at every turn that our system is resilient and will right itself. You,
on the other hand, seem to expend a great deal of energy consciously advocating their agenda.

I didn't mention fitness for office, only that the collusion narrative is something pushed by the liberal media and helps the Russian goals you
state you understand.

The media have a duty to report the truth. The fact is that there is a case to be made for collusion. Would you rather they participate in a cover up?
From the perspective of the establishment, both its liberal and conservative wings, the issue has always been Trump's fitness for office. The longer
he stays in office saying crazy things, the worse America looks on the world stage. The collusion "narrative" provides a convenient premise that would
not involve "expert testimony" from mental health professionals. Pretty sure the average Trump supporter does not trust doctors... especially
psychiatric ones.

I don't think you are rooting for Russia, I think you have been unwittingly co-opted through propaganda to help them.

No. They want us to believe that liberal democracy is bankrupt. I remind people at every turn that our system is resilient and will right itself. You,
on the other hand, seem to expend a great deal of energy consciously advocating their agenda.

I didn't mention fitness for office, only that the collusion narrative is something pushed by the liberal media and helps the Russian goals you
state you understand.

The media have a duty to report the truth. The fact is that there is a case to be made for collusion. Would you rather they participate in a cover up?
From the perspective of the establishment, both its liberal and conservative wings, the issue has always been Trump's fitness for office. The longer
he stays in office saying crazy things, the worse America looks on the world stage. The collusion "narrative" provides a convenient premise that would
not involve "expert testimony" from mental health professionals. Pretty sure the average Trump supporter does not trust doctors... especially
psychiatric ones.

Once again, thank you for affirm the Russian agenda.

Actually I expend my energy refuting baseless claims of collusion, made by those too gullible to resist propaganda.

You've swerved off onto other conspiracy theories in the rest of your post... I guess those that fall for one type of propaganda will fall for it all,
as you demonstrate

It is painfully obvious to everyone here who the propagandist on this thread is. Remember when someone kept claiming that the Democratic Party was in
disarray as they closed behind their candidate? What is your evaluation of the state of the Republican Party, given Trump's humiliating defeat at
their hands yesterday?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.